The Remarkable, Conflicted Ricketts Family (and Their Political Money)

Joe Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs, Ameritrade, etc., is the very wealthy man who wants to spend $10 million on ads portraying President Obama as a leftist radical influenced by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as families tend to be, the Ricketts (and their money) are not always on the same page. Here's a look at Joe Ricketts and his politically powerful kids.

Joe Ricketts, owner of the Chicago Cubs, Ameritrade, etc., is the very wealthy man who wants to spend $10 million on ads portraying President Obama as a leftist radical influenced by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as families tend to be, the Ricketts (and their money) are not always on the same page. Here's a look at Joe Ricketts and his politically powerful kids.

Name: Joe Ricketts

Relationship: Patriarch

Lives in: Little Jackson Hole, Wyoming

Occupation: Owns TDAmeritrade, DNAinfo.com, High Plains Bison. With his four kids, he bought the Chicago Cubs in 2009. He's really rich.

Politics: Conservative

Political Money: Created the Taxpayers Against Earmarks in 2010, which spent $600,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The group changed the name to Ending Spending in 2011 and spent $250,000 backing Deb Fischer, the surprise winner of Tuesday's Nebraska Republican Senate primary. The group has also spent money backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in his recall election and on ads in Indiana against Sen. Dick Lugar, who was defeated in the Republican primary earlier this month. Joe has given $500,000 to the anti-incumbent PAC, Campaign for Primary Accountability. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that Ricketts wants to spend $10 million trying to defeat Obama with a plan titled, "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good." It would argue that Obama can't help but be influenced by the radical leftist politics of early mentors like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Occupation: Chief operating officer of Ameritrade, co-owner of the Cubs.

Politics: Conservative

Political Money: Pete ran for Senate in Nebraska in 2006 and poured so much money into the election he triggered the "millionaire's amendment," which allows the opponents of self-financed candidates to raise larger sums from donors. (The Supreme Court struck down that law two years later.) Pete spent $12 million of his own money on the race and won just 36 percent of the vote -- even though there were only 570,000 registered Republican voters in a state with a population of just 1.7 million. Pete was running against Sen. Ben Nelson (who's retiring this year) and attacked him for something that eventually became a major Tea Party theme: ending earmarks. Pete also expressed an aversion to mean political attack ads, ironic, given his dad's love of them. At a debate in September 2006, Rickets said he took down his ads attacking Nelson, but "You, on the other hand, continued to put out ads that were basically lies."

The loss didn't drive Pete from politics. In the last three election cycles, he's donated at least $60,700 to Republican causes. He runs a Nebraska think tank called the Platte Institute.

Name: Laura Ricketts

Relationship: Daughter

Lives in: Chicago

Occupation: Worked at an environmental consulting firm and as a corporate lawyer. A LGBT activist, she's the first openly gay co-owner of a major sports team. She founded Ecotravel.com, though the website does not appear to be operating at the moment.

Politics: Laura is the family's liberal. She's an advocate for gay rights and serves on the board of directors Lambda Legal, a group that files lawsuits fighting discrimination. In explaining her background to the Chicago Reader in December, Laura detailed a familiar path to liberal politics. When she moved to Chicago from Omaha in 1985 to attend the University of Chicago, she felt "culture shock." She explained, "Once I settled down and got used to things like using public transportation, it didn't take long to love the city. I loved the diversity of it. I loved all the cultural options. The people here are sophisticated and intelligent, but also down to earth."

Political Money: According to the donor records from the Center for Responsive Politics, Ricketts started out small in donating political money, giving $250 to John Kerry in 2004 and $500 to the Democratic National Committee. Since then, she's started donating at much higher levels. In the last three election cycles, she's donated at least $293,406. (She did give $4,200 to her Republican brother Pete's Senate campaign in 2005.) This year, she's raised $456,631 for Obama so far. She introduced Obama at a Washington fundraiser in February, saying, the event was held "to show the president that the LGBT community stands strongly behind his reelection." She added, "I know the president stands with us."

Update: Laura issued a statement on the Wright ad, the Chicago Tribune reports: "All of my family members and I love this country and are passionate about doing what is right for the country. That love of country was instilled in us by my father. We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views."

Name: Tom Ricketts

Relationship: Son

Lives in: Wilmette, Illinois

Occupation: Chairman of the Cubs, CEO of Incapital

Politics: Conservative

Political Money: He gave $49,450 to Republican causes in the last three election cycles, plus $15,000 to a baseball PAC.

Update: Tom issued a statement repudiating the Wright ad, saying, "As chairman of the Chicago Cubs, I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year’s presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has," the Chicago Tribune reports. "I shall have no further comment on this or any other election year political issue."

About the Author

Most Popular

Congressional Republicans and conservative pundits had the chance to signal to Trump that his attacks on law enforcement are unacceptable—but they sent the opposite message.

President Trump raged at his TV on Sunday morning. And yet on balance, he had a pretty good weekend. He got a measure of revenge upon the hated FBI, firing former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe two days before his pension vested. He successfully coerced his balky attorney general, Jeff Sessions, into speeding up the FBI’s processes to enable the firing before McCabe’s retirement date.

Beyond this vindictive fun for the president, he achieved something politically important. The Trump administration is offering a not very convincing story about the McCabe firing. It is insisting that the decision was taken internally by the Department of Justice, and that the president’s repeated and emphatic demands—public and private—had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified.

Last May, TheWashington Post’s James Hohmann noted “an uncovered dynamic” that helped explain the GOP’s failure to repeal Obamacare. Three current Democratic House members had opposed the Affordable Care Act when it first passed. Twelve Democratic House members represent districts that Donald Trump won. Yet none voted for repeal. The “uncovered dynamic,” Hohmann suggested, was Nancy Pelosi’s skill at keeping her party in line.

She’s been keeping it in line for more than a decade. In 2005, George W. Bush launched his second presidential term with an aggressive push to partially privatize Social Security. For nine months, Republicans demanded that Democrats admit the retirement system was in crisis and offer their own program to change it. Pelosi refused. Democratic members of Congress hosted more than 1,000 town-hall meetings to rally opposition to privatization. That fall, Republicans backed down, and Bush’s second term never recovered.

Invented centuries ago in France, the bidet has never taken off in the States. That might be changing.

“It’s been completely Americanized!” my host declares proudly. “The bidet is gone!” In my time as a travel editor, this scenario has become common when touring improvements to hotels and resorts around the world. My heart sinks when I hear it. To me, this doesn’t feel like progress, but prejudice.

Americans seem especially baffled by these basins. Even seasoned American travelers are unsure of their purpose: One globe-trotter asked me, “Why do the bathrooms in this hotel have both toilets and urinals?” And even if they understand the bidet’s function, Americans often fail to see its appeal. Attempts to popularize the bidet in the United States have failed before, but recent efforts continue—and perhaps they might even succeed in bringing this Old World device to new backsides.

How evangelicals, once culturally confident, became an anxious minority seeking political protection from the least traditionally religious president in living memory

One of the most extraordinary things about our current politics—really, one of the most extraordinary developments of recent political history—is the loyal adherence of religious conservatives to Donald Trump. The president won four-fifths of the votes of white evangelical Christians. This was a higher level of support than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, an outspoken evangelical himself, ever received.

Trump’s background and beliefs could hardly be more incompatible with traditional Christian models of life and leadership. Trump’s past political stances (he once supported the right to partial-birth abortion), his character (he has bragged about sexually assaulting women), and even his language (he introduced the words pussy and shithole into presidential discourse) would more naturally lead religious conservatives toward exorcism than alliance. This is a man who has cruelly publicized his infidelities, made disturbing sexual comments about his elder daughter, and boasted about the size of his penis on the debate stage. His lawyer reportedly arranged a $130,000 payment to a porn star to dissuade her from disclosing an alleged affair. Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers. We are a long way from The Book of Virtues.

As the Trump presidency approaches a troubling tipping point, it’s time to find the right term for what’s happening to democracy.

Here is something that, even on its own, is astonishing: The president of the United States demanded the firing of the former FBI deputy director, a career civil servant, after tormenting him both publicly and privately—and it worked.

The American public still doesn’t know in any detail what Andrew McCabe, who was dismissed late Friday night, is supposed to have done. But citizens can see exactly what Donald Trump did to McCabe. And the president’s actions are corroding the independence that a healthy constitutional democracy needs in its law enforcement and intelligence apparatus.

McCabe’s firing is part of a pattern. It follows the summary removal of the previous FBI director and comes amid Trump’s repeated threats to fire the attorney general, the deputy attorney, and the special counsel who is investigating him and his associates. McCabe’s ouster unfolded against a chaotic political backdrop which includes Trump’s repeated calls for investigations of his political opponents, demands of loyalty from senior law enforcement officials, and declarations that the job of those officials is to protect him from investigation.

Much more than time separates the 27th president from the 45th: from their vastly different views on economics, to their conceptions of the presidency itself.

As Donald Trump’s executive orders punishing steel and aluminum imports threaten a trade war around the globe, Republicans on Capitol Hill are debating whether to reassert Congress’s ultimate constitutional authority over tariffs and trade. This isn’t the first time the GOP has split itself in two on the question of protective tariffs. But the last time, just over 100 years ago, the Republican president’s policies were the exact opposite of Trump’s.

William Howard Taft—in his opposition to populism and protectionism, as well as his devotion to constitutional limits on the powers of the presidency—was essentially the anti-Trump. Unlike the current president, and his own predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft refused to rule by executive order, insisting that the chief executive could only exercise those powers that the Constitution explicitly authorizes.

Among the more practical advice that can be offered to international travelers is wisdom of the bathroom. So let me say, as someone who recently returned from China, that you should be prepared to one, carry your own toilet paper and two, practice your squat.

I do not mean those goofy chairless sits you see at the gym. No, toned glutes will not save you here. I mean the deep squat, where you plop your butt down as far as it can go while staying aloft and balanced on the heels. This position—in contrast to deep squatting on your toes as most Americans naturally attempt instead—is so stable that people in China can hold it for minutes and perhaps even hours ...

The debate around sexual-harassment legislation is playing out in the Maryland General Assembly, where reform advocates say leadership is loath to embrace changes.

In Maryland, legislative sessions run 90 days, from January through early April. On the final day of each session—commonly referred to by the Latin term sine die—the capital city of Annapolis lets its hair down. There is dining and dancing and parties galore as aides, lawmakers, and lobbyists celebrate having survived the season.

A few years back, at one sine die soiree hosted by a legislator, a former Annapolis aide (who requested anonymity because she remains involved in Maryland politics) took to the dance floor. “I was dancing a little bit by myself,” she recalled. “All of a sudden I hear, ‘You’re packing a little bit more than I thought back here!’ I turn around, and this legislator is dancing right behind me. I was like, ‘Ooookay. This is a little weird. I know your wife and kids.’ So I tried to subtly move away.” The legislator followed, recalled the ex-aide. And then: “He got aroused.” The young woman made a swift escape, and, she informed me, “I have not spoken to that legislator one-on-one since.”

Scholars have been sounding the alarm about data-harvesting firms for nearly a decade. The latest Cambridge Analytica scandal shows it may be too late to stop them.

On Friday night, Facebook suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, the political-data company backed by the billionaire Robert Mercer that consulted on both the Brexit and Trump campaigns.

The action came just before The Guardian and The New York Timesdropped major reports in which the whistle-blower Christopher Wylie alleged that Cambridge Analytica had used data that an academic had allegedly improperly exfiltrated from the social network. These new stories, backed by Wylie’s account and internal documents, followed years of reporting by The Guardianand The Intercept about the possible problem.

The details could seem Byzantine. Aleksandr Kogan, then a Cambridge academic, founded a company, Global Science Research, and immediately took on a major client, Strategic Communication Laboratories, which eventually gave birth to Cambridge Analytica. (Steve Bannon, an adviser to the company and a former senior adviser to Trump, reportedly picked the name.)

The Supreme Court will consider the rights of crisis pregnancy centers, which help women “imagine what the choice of life would be like.”

Abortion is back in the Supreme Court this week. On Tuesday, the justices will hear a case on crisis pregnancy centers, the facilities established by pro-life organizations around the country to counsel women against abortion. In 2015, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act, requiring licensed clinics that provide certain services—including ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and advice on birth control—to post information about affordable abortion and contraception services offered by the state. Unlicensed facilities that provide these services have to disclose their lack of medical certification. A network of crisis pregnancy centers, including the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), sued in response, arguing that the government is violating their right to free speech by forcing them to promote abortion.